[雙語翻譯]軌道交通外文翻譯--輕軌運(yùn)輸成本績效：未來發(fā)展的機(jī)遇

1、8400 英文單詞， 英文單詞，4.6 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 1.4 萬字 萬字文獻(xiàn)出處： 文獻(xiàn)出處：Love P E D, Ahiaga-Dagbui D, Welde M, et al. Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing[J]. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and

2、 Practice, 2017, 100: 27-39.Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future- proofingPeter E.D. Love, Dominic Ahiaga-Dagbui, Morten Welde, James OdeckAbstract The cost performance of Light Rail Transit (LRT

3、) systems have been scrutinized by the popular press and public sector infrastructure agencies as they have been prone to incurring cost increases in their capital expenditures (CAPEX). In tackling such increases, emphas

4、is is placed on mitigating strategic misrepresentation and optimism bias, which has hindered the public sectors ability to embrace innovation, particularly with regard to the justification and adoption of LRT. More often

5、 than not, operational expenditure (OPEX) is neglected, and is not considered a part of the transportation cost performance literature. The aim of this paper is to examine the equivocality that surrounds the determinatio

6、n of cost performance of LRT projects. It is suggested that the public sector should move beyond focusing on strategic misrepresentation and optimism bias, as many governments worldwide now have in place mechanisms to ad

7、dress such issues, and instead focus on future-proofing their assets. It is suggested that the key enablers of future-proofing LRT are (1) private finance; (2) delivery strategy (e.g. design-build-finance-operate); (3) d

8、igitization (e.g. building information modelling); and (4) asset management (e.g. smart technologies). If the public sector is to provide an LRT system that is cost effective and able to respond to the demands imposed by

9、 climate change, then it needs to be considered from a life- cycle perspective and funding sought from the private sector to ensure its viability.Keywords: CAPEX performance；Digitization；Future-proofing；Light rail transi

10、t；OPEX1. IntroductionThe efficient provision of transportation infrastructure assets provides the hallmark of a well-functioning economy. Yet, the delivery of such assets has been and continues to be the bête noire

11、for the public sector; they consistently experience cost overruns and fail to deliver their expected benefits (Terrill and Danks, 2016). In urban environments, Light Rail Transit (LRT) (i.e. mid-sized electrified rail te

12、chnology) is often selected as preferred mode of transportation in lieu of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (i.e. buses that run-on rubber tires on exclusive paved roadways and powered by diesel) by travelers in developed countri

13、es (Hensher et al., 2015; Hensher and Mulley, 2015). According to Hensher (2016) LRT dominates as it simply deemed to be ‘sexy and buses are boring, and that it offers a much better value for money than BRT’ (p. 289).Whe

14、n choosing between BRT and LRT options their costs parameters attract the most attention from decision-makers. In Australia, for example, the mean capital expenditure (CAPEX) per kilometer for BRT is $36.58 million compa

15、red to $63.5 million for LRT. In the United States (US) the Government Accountability Office found CAPEX costs of light rail to be 2.5 times that of BRT based on studies of LRT systems from the 1980s and onwards (GAO, 20

16、01). While the CAPEX is significantly higher for LRT, its operating costs vary according to scheme characteristics. The GAO (2001) found operating costs of LRT to be significantly higher per there is a need to move beyon

17、d focusing on the measuring the cost performance of LRT projects based upon CAPEX (i.e. funds to acquire and/or upgrade physical assets), but to also include their operational expenditure (OPEX) (i.e. operating costs). I

18、f the cost performance of LRT projects is to improve, then the way that they are delivered needs to fundamentally change. Thus, key issues that may in the future guarantee the cost effectiveness and the future-proofing o

19、f LRTs are proposed once the decision to opt for this mode of transit has been made by an incumbent government.2. The equivocality of light rail transit CAPEX performanceThe cost overruns in the Edinburgh Trams and Sydne

20、y Light Rail projects are not isolated incidents for LRT projects. Evidence provided by Pickrell (1990) and O’Toole (2015)’s analysis of reports produced by the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) in the US over a 25 year-pe

21、riod, for example, reveal that CAPEX overruns have been a recurring theme with LRTs (O’Toole, 2015). Table 1 presents the actual and predicted Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) CAPEX amount for a sample of LRT projects

22、 constructed in the US. This data for LRT has been extracted from the work presented in Pickrell (1990), denoted by (*), and O’Toole (2015). In Pickrell’s (1990) research, the forecasted capital costs were established at

23、 the completion of the preliminary engineering study, when a Design to Build (DtB) was undertaken.Table 1.Light rail transit CAPEX performance in US cities from 1988 to 2013 (see O’Toole, 2015).City Year Predicted $ mi

24、llions Actual $ millions Increase %Portland* 1988 172 266 55Sacramento* 1988 165 188 13Buffalo* 1989 478 722 51Pittsburgh* 1989 699 622 —11San Diego 1989 114 103 —10Los Angeles 1990 561 877 56San Jose 1991 258 380 48St.

25、Louis 1993 317 387 22Dallas 1996 325 360 11Baltimore 1997 82 116 42San Jose 1997 281 325 16Portland 1998 454 782 72Salt Lake 1999 206 299 45Denver 2000 149 178 19St. Louis 2001 256 339 32Dallas 2002 333 437 31Sacramento

26、2003 202 219 8Salt Lake 2003 189 192 2Minneapolis 2004 244 697 186Pittsburgh 2004 184 385 109Portland 2004 283 350 24San Diego 2005 387 506 31Denver 2006 585 851 45Newark 2006 181 208 15New Jersey 2006 930 1756 89Charlot